text:
How are disabled passengers evacuated during emergency?
Basically the title. However, I would request if someone can throw some light on how FAA or the airlines train the crew to handle emergency evacuations with a disabled person on board. Are the ramps and slides accessible to persons with disabilities?

I strongly suspect that this depends on the type of handicap in question.

Toss them down the emergency chutes if they can't jump/slide themselves?

@dalearn why can't the crew hold them and jump together on the escape chute?

You can find the full text of the FAA's recommendations in this AC
But the flight attendant is responsible for discussing with them whats best.

ASSISTING DISABLED PERSONS. The handicapped person knows best . the
  manner in wbch he can be assisted, and flight attendants should not
  hesitate to discuss this with the individual. Keep in mind that
  different disabilities have different needs, and injury can result if
  a person with a disability is improperly assisted.

The AC goes on to describe most major scenarios and common instances.


text:
How do I explain what makes an airplane fly to a non-technical person?
As an engineer I can explain in very technical terms exactly what makes an airplane fly, however, it isn't easily understood by non-technical people.  How can I explain it to a non-technical person, or a nine year old, in a way that isn't really incorrect but is far less technical than what we learn as pilots?

I don't really think these qualify as an answer, but http://youtu.be/bv3m57u6ViE & http://youtu.be/_LXW3pHNn_U might help (the latter, a delightful 1960s video from the FAA, is also a FDA approved treatment for insomnia -- oh that voice!)

As long as you don't say that a plane flies because of the shape of its wing. I'm still furious at my high school teacher for telling me that was the one and only reason a plane could fly. Too bad I wasn't clever enough to ask him how a plane can fly upside down.

According to Mary Shafer, retired NASA engineer, it's all about Lift Demons and Thrust Pixies.

Big Bank Accounts...

Lift is 100% from air-deflection by tilted wings, but confusingly, this then causes 100% of the pressure-difference blamed on "Bernoulli Effect."   There's no 60%/40% here, instead it's 100% Newton's wing-tilt versus 100% Bernoulli's velocity-difference.  Lift requires both.  They're just two equal viewpoints.  Choose whichever one is easier to explain.  https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/bernoulli-and-newton/

The simplest explanation is the "hand out of the window" one:

Hold your hand out of the window while in a moving car and hold your hand at an angle. It gets pushed upwards. Your hand represents the wing of an airplane. The plane's engine simply makes sure the "hand" keeps moving forward against the force of the wind.

Even a 4-year old understands the concept using this explanation.

Only "wind" is somewhat misleading - do you need wind to fly?

You don't need wind to fly, but you shouldn't use the word "airflow" when explaining flight to your Grandma. If people stick their head out of the window of a moving car, 99% of people will say they feel the wind in their face, not "airflow" :-)

Oh, dear, all that sticking out of limbs calls for a security briefing ;-) My gripe with wind is that fact that people often mistake "wind" for thermals when talking about gliding: "Oh, a sailplane - do you need wind for that?"

Oddly enough, this is how I explain it now (along with the requisite "you can make a plate fly this way if it is moving fast enough"), but unfortunately the lift generated by the impact of the relative wind on the body of an airplane is a very small part of the total lift generated, and I am trying to be a little more correct in my explanation (and at least cover where the majority of the lift comes from).  Great answer though, and you still get a +1 from me!

Consequently, this is from where the term "airplane" comes from. The wings are the plane that deflects the air.

I only wish I had more upvotes to give...  I understood this as a 4 year old, because I would stick my hand out the window and do this.  I can now understand and appreciate the engineering explanations too, but it isn't as complicated as we often make it.

@dotancohen so, strictly speaking, does the word "airplane" refer only to the wings?

@Someone: Only if you consider the word parkway to, strictly speaking, refer only to the place where one parks.

@MichaelHall "isn't as complicated" It is if we explain 3D wings, which are examples of propulsion. Wings are pumps; reaction-motors. To use Bernoulli, we make our wings infinitely wide, so "Ground Effect" is 100%, and no energy is needed for flight. Instead, real wings are like helo rotors, using net energy to create a down-moving plume, injecting net energy into the atmosphere, and requiring full-blown Navier-Stokes equations. Airplanes and hummingbirds and helicopters all fly by reaction, by vortex-shedding, which is just what we feel when sticking tilted hands out the car window.

@wbeaty, are you furthering my point, or refuting it?  Because I think we agree, but you are coming across as if we don't...

@MichaelHall BOTH! It's easy to explain verbally.  But the lift calculations even defeated Ludwig Prandtl! So he cheated in 1924. We've been confused ever since. Wings employ propulsion, act as reaction-motors. This involves shed vortices, where Euler/Bernoulli eqns fail, and instead require (unsolvable) full Navier-Stokes equations. Prandtl is the one who "simplified" it by removing the Newtonian net downwash. How? Just make wings be infinitely wide. Or, fly infinitely fast.  So, he's only explaining UNPHYSICAL aircraft. It doesn't explain 3D wings, even the ideal versions.

...cont. Prandtl insists that airplanes fly by pure pressure-diff alone, where the air far behind the wing is not left moving downwards. In reality this is impossible, a direct violation of Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws. But that's OK?  Because it makes calculations easy? (No, that's not how physics works. Prandtl is "searching for lost car keys across the street, because it's dark & the light is brighter over there.")  Here are two animations which depict the "downwash" produced by a wing.  Remove it, and lift will vanish.  http://amasci.com/wing/lasrWing.gif  http://amasci.com/wing/rotgif1.gif

Here's one way to do it: airplanes work by pushing air. The wings push air down, and the airplane turns by pushing air in different ways. Engines push air to the back, pulling the plane forward. Wings work by turning the air downwards--the airflow on the top of the wing follows the curve of the wing, which points it downward.
My apologies if this is too low-level--is this what you had in mind?

This is more what I had in mind, can you think of an easy to understand way to describe how the wings push the air down?

Added a sentence explaining lift. Thoughts?

Every pilot knows the first thing that makes an airplane fly is money.
as I tried to explain the 4 forces to my 6 year old daughter and trying to coach her I asked, what makes it fall out of the sky. I expected weight or gravity and she said lack of money. She was right.
I try to explain it like a straw. You have four straws, one in front, one in back, one above and one below. The one below the aircraft sucks at a constant rate and never stops (gravity/weight). The one in front is the prop generating thrust. It is essentially sucking its way forward. The one in back is drag and it varies by situation but it's always trying to keep you from going forward. The final one is the one on top and that is lift. Lift is generated by the wings and sucks the airplane up. The wing creates lift by moving forward. If any of the straws win other than the front one and the top one, you crash.
As for wind, no you can fly through no wind but the addition of wind coming at you effectively helps fill that forward straw so you can essentially take off at a lower ground speed. This is called relative wind. If your plane flies at 54 knots and you could essentially fly into a 34 knot headwind at 20 knots and achieve backwards flight at 14 knots.

Blow over a sheet of paper that is lying on the table, and watch it take off. Then explain of course that there is a lot more air involved in keeping a 747 in the air, but you could make it plausible by mentioning how strong tornadoes and hurricanes are.

Planes don't fly because of fast-moving air above them. In particular, there is just as much fast-moving air below a plane as there is above it.

I know that, but I'm not grandma. It just shows what air pressure can do.

OK but planes don't fly because of air pressure, and planes are much bigger than a piece of paper, so what does this analogy help to explain?

@DavidRicherby why you say that planes don't fly because of air presure? This answer is based on the  Bernoulli's principle. Wikipedia "From Bernoulli's principle, the pressure on the upper surface where the flow is moving faster is lower than the pressure on the lower surface where it is moving slower. This pressure difference creates a net aerodynamic force, pointing upward."

You're intentions are right but you're explication is lacking.

Exactly right.  Tiny pressures add up fast.  People don't know this?  A yard-square plate, with only 1psi less pressure above, will lift 1300lbs of load.  (Or, a 200lbs person, standing on a yard-square plate, can be lifted by a pressure-difference of only 0.15psi.)  Yet the surfaces involved are normally WAY bigger than a square yard.  Air is far from weightless, and even slightly-deflected air produces the small pressures needed to lift tons of aircraft+passengers.  A big trash bag contains a couple lbs of air, yet it feels weightless, because it's immersed in a "sea of air."

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
How many planes did the Soviet Union lose to Stinger missiles during Afghanistan War?
I have read Wikipedia articles about the war in Afghanistan, and it is often said that the Stinger had a great impact on the air mobility of the Soviet military.
Beside the role of interdiction (A2AD) of the helicopters to go to the mountains and deliver assault and special troops, did the American-built missile destroy or damage a lot of airplanes and helicopters?
What sort of technologies and tactics did the Soviet Union deploy to avoid being shot down?

It did have an impact for sure, the soviet helicopter pilots started flying so high that soldiers nicknamed them "cosmonauts"!

The introduction of the Stinger into the conflict meant that the Soviet Mi24 attack helicopters could no longer operate with the near impunity they had in the early stages. They had to adopt new tactics, flying either high or very low and fast.

This quotes an estimate of 269 aircraft, but I think its hard to find the exact number:
Kuperman, Alan J. “The Stinger Missile and U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 114, no. 2, 1999, pp. 219–263.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How do services like Flightradar24 and FlightAware track flights?
Do they use the same data sources/aviation services? If so, how do they differ?

It really isn't in the scope of this site to evaluate outside services.

I'll answer anyway - flightradar has a network of receivers ( https://www.flightradar24.com/add-coverage ) to process transponder and Flarm signals

It cannot be closed for "opinion-based", as the main sources are well known (ANSP, private ADS-B receivers network). It may be broad though.

@mins, well it got closed for asking which one was better. (and anyway, personally I am not sure it is on topic)

https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works - taken from the FR24 website. They use ADS-B - hence the reason the majority of General Aviation stuff doesn't show (unless it has a mode S transponder).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Why are airplanes sometimes led by a vehicle?
Airplanes are sometimes led by a vehicle on taxiways until they reach the runway or stand, why is this?

Related: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/33042/how-do-pilots-identify-the-taxi-path-to-the-runway

For some operations they are essential.  The guys I work with who used to be part of the 480th and flew U-2s and SR-71s would have the alternate crew inspect the runway, and provide follow-me support.

In addition to the other answers there is also a matter of fuel consumption and economics to consider.

In addition to the reasons given by @Daniele, there are two others that I can think of: security and lack of visibility.
At Amsterdam Schipol for a time at least in the 1990s there were two airlines, El Al and Tower that were escorted from the gate to the runway and from the runway to the gate because there was a concern about what we would now call terrorist activity. They used a follow-me car in front and, as I remember, a light armored vehicle (wheeled, not tracked) at each wing and a following vehicle.
There are occasions, especially in 747s where the pilot eye level is high, that after landing in minimum conditions on a well lit runway (think centerline lighting, etc.) you turn off the runway only to find that you can't see the taxiway edges all that well. The solution is to call for a follow-me car. Once after landing on 22R at KJFK with the barest of minimums, we asked for a follow-me when we were concerned about being able to keep to the taxiway.

I remember seeing an El Al aircraft under escort at Berlin Schönefeld (I think follow-me in front, light armoured vehicle and police car following), probably mid-2000s.

"Follow-me cars", as they are known, make it easier for pilots to get to the correct spot by the correct route.
This could be the runway before take-off, or the final stand after landing.
They're useful at airports with complex routes and relieve the pilots of some additional navigation burden; their function is one both of safety and convenience.
They might be used as a rule at a particular airport, or on request (if perhaps the pilot is unfamiliar with the taxiways, or there's an urgent need to get to a gate very quickly), or because of local conditions (signage or lighting problems, re-routing because of ground maintenance work).
However, the presence of cars around aircraft and runways is not without its own risks, and follow-me cars in fact add an extra layer of complication to airfield management.
(And sometimes, they have a rather odd marketing role... at Bologna (BLQ) one of the follow-me cars is a Lamborghini. Make of that what you will.)

I can imagine the Lamborghini follow-me car drag-racing the aircraft taking off... ;-)

By "Lamborghini", do you mean the go-fast car, or the tractor?

It may be required by the airport authority for large aircraft.
For example, at LAX, there's a detailed operations plan (no clue if that's the most recent version) for how FAA group VI aircraft (such as the A380 and 747-8) move around the airport. The plan requires airport personnel to escort and monitor large aircraft since many taxi routes may cause the wings to encroach on the normal safety clearances. These aircraft are large enough to pose a hazard to service roads around the airport, and airport staff need to block traffic temporarily to accommodate movements.
Of course, having a follow-me car doesn't eliminate all risk of incidents.


text:
Are requests for an emergency landing ever refused?
Under what circumstances might it happen that a pilot's request to make an emergency landing is refused?
Is such a thing known to have occurred?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on History.SE rather than Aviation.

@RalphJ I disagree, we plenty of questions on here that could overlap with History.SE and this is very much a question specific to the aviation field.

@RalphJ sooo..... emergency landings arent part of aviation?

@RalphJ This seems solidly on-topic to me, since it's about "flying technique, maneuvers, navigation, procedures, etc.", Air Traffic Control, and aviation regulations. Can you explain why it's off-topic in your opinion?

@TannerSwett  No, this question isn't about any of those things at all. It asks "has (this) ever happened, what was the outcome, and was it legal?"  Those are history-book questions, and maybe Law.SE for the last part. How you conduct a successful emergency landing is solidly on-topic; did one nation ever (ever) deny permission for one back in the Cold War era, is not. Note that the Help Center makes no mention of "aviation history" as on-topic: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic

@RalphJ I remember a rule in History.SE about "No research then get out!"

I recall reading about some airline incidents like this in the Middle East, I think in Saudi Arabia.

@JonathanIrons that rule about doing some basic prior research applies to every site on the SE network, and would definitely be more on topic on History since this is asking for a list of denied emergency landing requests instead of the aviation rules, logistics, or technical limitations/requirements related to doing so.

@0xdd isnt what I ask considered to be an rule? Wasnt there an international rule about denying emergency rules back in the day?

Maybe, but that isn't what you're asking -- you are, in the extreme literal sense, asking whether there were any points during the Cold War when an airport denied an aircraft signalling an emergency permission to land. The community can't infer hidden meanings in your questions, and will not try to shoehorn it into something valid on this site. That's up to you.

@0xdd I actually said I am more interested in Cold War era which made the whole question modeled after it. Let me edit the question.

Commenters above, the question has now been quite substantially edited. Please review your comments and/or close votes to see if they still apply.

@DavidRicherby this made me remember my VOR compass question which never got un downvoted...

@JonathanIrons It's an unfortunate feature of Stack Exchange that downvoters and commenters don't get notified when content changes.

I can imagine a couple of reasons why ATC could tell the pilots to please land somewhere else even if they have an emergency

All runways are closed, e.g. they are repaving the runway surface or when the snow trucks haven't yet cleared a thick layer of snow or the instrument landing system is inop and the visual conditions are not good enough, runway flooded after hurricane,...
Another emergency in progress, e.g. passengers freely running around on the airport after an evacuation, not safe to land
Political reasons with hijacked plane (e.g. Lufthansa Flight 181 Landshut was refused to land even when they declared an emergency with low fuel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181
Presidential no-fly zone when other airports are available close by.
Virus infected people on board to avoid contamination of those on the ground (zombie apocalypse)

Last zombie apocalypse, they just asked me if there was anything worth taking in the cargo hold!


text:
How much lift does the wing attach fitting actually carry?
How do I calculate the lift force that the the bolt that join the wings to the fuselage of a strutted or braced airplane carry?
I know in a cantilever airplane,the bolts have to carry all of the lift load on a wing but how about a strutted airplane - how do the wing attach bolts share the lift with the wing braces or struts, i.e. is the lift load shared between them, the bolts carrying half and the bracing wires or struts carrying the other half?

The wings carry themselves, any engines attached to them and the fuel inside. Only the remaining load e.g. the weight of the fuselage is carried through the connection of the fuselage and wing.

This only applies to aircraft with conventional spar designs. Some aircraft, like the homebuilt BD-5, have a spar that slides over a center carry-through spar and uses a small taper bolt to prevent movement in torsion. Works well as long you remember to inspect the hardware on a regular basis.

On an aircraft with flexible wire-based wings and significant washout, I've seen the lower wires go completely slack during high-speed flight, due to the torque generated by the downlifting wingtips during high-speed flight.  Food for thought when formulating the answers--

Instead of the lift loads being carried by the bolts you might consider bolted flanges.  You basicly make this part stronger than the wing and spar, not weaker.  Like Peter K said, it is also important to know the strength properties of the components of the structure. Find the weakest point.  That is where improvement is possible, provided weight increase is not too extreme.

The answer depends on the elastic deformation of wing and strut. Extreme example: Make the strut a rubber band and all lift needs to be carried by the wing and its fittings. Other extreme: Make the wing spar (or attachment points - this works either way) from rubber - now the strut needs to take all the loads.
In real life, stiffness attracts tension and compression, and in order to know the load distribution between wing spar and strut you need to look at them with a slight deformation from loading. How much resistance does each show (in isolation) against that deformation? This will tell you in what ratio the forces will split between wing and strut. Make sure to use the stiffness of the real structure - the material property called Young's modulus is not what I mean here.
If you want to be safe, you need to consider any single point failure and still have a flyable airplane. Normally, you design your structure with a safety factor (usually 1.5, but higher for fittings). Now assume that in turn each of the structural members is missing and calculate the loads on the remaining structure with a safety factor of 1.0. Dimension each part at least for those loads and you should be pretty sure that the intact structure will work out fine.

Anonymous down voter: If you don't understand structural mechanics please ask in the comments or your own question. Sprinkling downvotes on answers you don't understand isn't helping anybody.

Deformation is caused by the forces acting on the structural members. Determine forces first, then deformation follows from the material properties. I wasn't the downvoted, by the way.

@Koyovis And I didn't downvote your answer, either. The deformation is to determine stiffness of the part. The ratio in stiffness is inverse to the ratio of the forces in an overdetermined structure. The forces first approach only works if there are enough degrees of freedom (Cremona plan etc.).

The diagonal strut transforms the inner wing construction to a kinematically and statically determined system, with the triangle experiencing compression and tension forces. Within the triangle, both upper and lower skin experience stress in the same direction (tension or compression). Only outside the strut is the wing still a cantilever beam, with upper skin under compression and lower skin under tension. Point is: adding the strut does not create a statically overdetermined structure, which your answer addresses.

@Koyovis: Depends entirely on the wing root mount. If that is a hinge, you are correct. If it has a central spar running all the span (which is how it is mostly done), it is indeed an overdetermined structure.

It will have one or more spars, yes. Triangles are statically determined if the connection points can be modelled as not absorbing much torque (which they should be). The central bit of the wing and the two struts form a triangle,  mainly being loaded with forces inline of the beams. Only thing is to prevent the upper skin from popping off from the pressure differential.

In flight, the fuselage hangs off of the wing. For dimensioning purposes, consider:

the intersection points to exert no moments and to behave as hinges;
weight W of the fuselage to be concentrated in the Centre of Gravity;
lift of each wing to be concentrated in its Centre of Lift.

If we dimension the construction in this way, we over-dimension which is never a bad idea with primary construction bolts. In reality the following factors alleviate the loads:

The bolts are modelled as hinges which cannot exert a moment, but actually they do exert torque.
The wing lift is distributed loading, with most of it near the wing root.

Bolts 1, 2 and 3 experience lift and gravity forces from the construction, and exert equal and opposite forces in order for everything to stay in one piece. Fuselage weight is transferred to bar 2-3 which distributes the load evenly over bolts 2 and 3. Remove the bolts and the fuselage falls from the assembly.
Force equilibrium in point 1 from this answer:

$F_{13} \cdot sinψ = ½L => F_{13} = \frac{L}{2sinψ}$
$F_{12} = F_{13} \cdot cosψ = \frac{L}{2tanψ}$

In point 2, bolt reaction force in green:

* $F_{V} = ¼W$ $\tag{Vertical}$
* $F_{H} = \frac{L}{2tanψ}$ $\tag{Horizontal}$
In point 3, bolt reaction force in green:

* $F_{V} = ¼W - F_{13} \cdot sinψ =  ¼W - ½L$ $\tag{Vertical}$
* $F_{H} = \frac{L}{2tanψ}$ $\tag{Horizontal}$

The forces on the strut are not in equilibrium

@Gypaets Strut 2 - 3 can be removed, all forces to be absorbed by the bolt supports.

I mean the vertical forces on strut 1-3. Vertical reaction force on the upper hinge (2) should also be 0.

This appears to ignore that a portion of created lift must lifts the wing itself, not the fuselage.

@JWalters Yes it's over-dimensioned. Also, lift does not concentrate in one point but is distributed over the wing.

@Gypaets the forces are held in equilibrium by the bolts. These are the forces acting on the bolts.

+1 just for the picture.  Try making a bookshelf without the "strut".  Shown here is the positive G case.  The bolts 1 and 3 would have to be torn from their mountings.

@Koyovis Ok... I guess I am beginning to understand what you did. The maths are ok then, but the assumption that the $W/4$ forces are acting on the bolts as a separate force is wrong: if you restrain the system at the bolts 2-3 only the forces on the wing side should be considered. Think what would happen if you change the support and assume the c.g. of the aircraft to be clamped: the bolts would only carry the loads of the wing. Forces shouldn't depend on where you support the structure, should they?

@Gypaets Forces depend very much on where you support the structure. On ground, the fuselage is supporting the wing. In the air, the wing supports the fuselage.

@Koyovis Different load situations require different supports, that's for sure. However, if you look at a single load case, the structure is in equilibrium. The reaction forces at the bolts don't depend on where we put our imaginary support- in stationary flight you could put it anywhere. Assuming a fixed support at the cg should lead to the same section forces at a section 1cm from the wingtip as if we would assume the aircraft to be clamped at the wingtip. To calculate to forces the bolts are seeing you have to do an imaginary cut and take either the forces left or right of it, but not both.

@Gypaets I’ve put the supports in stationary flight underneath bolt 1 and its counterpart on the right wing.

@Koyovis Then the error in the calculation is how the vertical force is split between joints 2 and 3. We can assume that the weight is splitted 1/4---1/4, but it could also be splitted differently: e.g. 1/2---0 or 1/8---3/8. The only solution consistent with the assumption of a free rotation joints at 2 and 3 is $F_{V2}=0$ and $F_{V3}=L/2$ (since its stationary flight let's simplify W=L).

#Gypaets Fuselage weight is transferred to bar 2-3 which distributes the load evenly over bolts 2 and 3. Remove the bolts and the fuselage falls from the assembly. The bolts are modelled as hinges to make sure that the construction is kinematically determined. The construction is not only dimensions for stationary flight, that is why L and W remain separate in my drawing.

@Koyovis If you have a pin joint at 2 no vertical force will go through it, joint 3 will carry it all. I guess it is difficult to explain in comments, but try to draw the whole mechanical system with all supports, joints and forces involved, perhaps you'll see it better.

@Gypaets feel free to use your knowledge to provide an answer with a drawing.


text:
Why is this screw on the wing of DASH-8 Q400 sticking out, is it safe?
Was flying with the Dash-8 Q400 and saw the screw sticking out? It's on the wing near the wheel compartment as shown in the picture.
Even if safe, it doesn't look pleasant to the passenger.
Are loose screws on those parts ever appropriate?

Full image: https://freeimage.host/i/H4KfDQ4

It's not a screw, it's a drain line for the engine tail pipe, for fuel that can collect in the tail pipe during "wet" starts. There are other drains for the various engine and propeller gearbox vents, depicted here.
It's just a pipe with a disc welded to it. The disc is to reduce anything dripping out the opening from being blown back toward the surface of the nacelle, in the air stream.

It is possible to have it welded in discreetly so that it's not noticeable and anxiety provoking for the passenger? Never seen it before and am flying frequently.

Well it's always been there.  There's group of drains with a big flow control disc farther up. I added a link to another post that shows it.

@EugenSunic Drains must be there someplace, and as the last paragraph describes, need to protrude out away from the nacelle to avoid fluid stains on it from normal drainage. Being at the lowest point of the nacelle, they're easier to see on a Q400 than an A320 (for example), but every engine has one or more. At some point, there's a limit to how far the engineering can go to avoid creating (baseless) fears in nervous fliers. Solution: ask (as you did here) "is that normal?" and get the answer. No more concerns over this drain mast!

@EugenSunic I think it's rather unlikely that the design will be changed to match passengers' taste of design; even if it's possible.

@U.Windl Unless said passenger owns the manufacturer, then they can go about trying to justify spending multiple millions on it to get re-certified because "it looks scary".

@EugenSunic Would you have been less alarmed if "DRAIN OUTLET" was printed next to it?

@AndrewMorton yes, I should write an email to bombardier


text:
Consequences of stalling while sideslipping in a glider?
In a glider, sometimes it's useful to do a side slip with crossed controls. However, when that happens, the pitot tube angle is out of line and the ASI goes to zero, therefore losing any indication of the current airspeed until the sideslip is interrupted.
During this maneuver, what would happen if I were not to keep proper control of the attitude, and thus airspeed, and were to stall the wings? would the glider spin, or would the unusual attitude prevent it?
Edit: The duplicate question does not necessarily responds as it seems to address powered airplanes, where other factors may be in play. My question targets specifically gliders.

Bottom line here is that cross controlled flight involves greater risk and is best done at a comfortable and known margin above stall.  Flaps and spoilers are also available to alter rate of descent.  Every plane is different.  It is imperative to safely learn the stall characteristics first.  There is no general rule for all aircraft.

What do you mean by "the unusual asset"?

@TannerSwett I strongly suspect that was supposed to be "the unusual attitude", and have edited accordingly. Stefano, if I'm wrong, please feel free to [Edit] further.

@aCVn I meant asset. What I meant is the strange position.

That is a not a normal meaning for "asset"; the edit was helpful.

@quietflyer maybe a false friend...

Yes if you were to stall the airplane while in a side slip it will probably depart, or start to depart, into a spin.  How aggressively would depend on the glider's actual stall behavior, some being more benign than others, but say you were in a glider with an abrupt stall with minimal warning and a sharp nose drop.  That sort of glider would spin if you didn't initiate recovery right away.
This isn't such a big problem, because the nice thing about gliders is you don't have power to confuse things when it comes to pitch attitude vs speed.  For a given configuration (weight/CG etc), if attitude X gives speed Y than you can be certain that any time you pitch to attitude to X you will get speed Y, with or without an airspeed indicator.
So, if you are on final at 50 kt, and want to side slip, just make sure you lower the nose a couple of degrees during the slip and control the pitch attitude, so that you will maintain somewhere around 50kt with the additional drag and there is very little risk of stalling and spinning. Easy peasy.
You also have the other impending stall cues, like softening controls, noise dying off, and such, so if you are aware and on top of things there shouldn't be a problem and it would take some ham fisted flying to really mess up.
If you are getting trained well, there should be dedicated no-airspeed instruction and practice and once you are considered a proficient pilot you should have no problem with flying safely with no airspeed for all maneuvers (if you sent me out in a power plane on some kind of wacky challenge, and told me I could only have one operating flight instrument, my choice would be a compass).

Excellent .Thank you. I was in fact concerned that doing side slip on landing would be potentially a problem if I were to fly through strong wind gradient and I were to find myself stalled while sideslipping. I don't do it very often, but one day it might be useful with airbrakes and sideslip if I really have to get into that field, so it's good training and good to know.

Best thing is to induce side slip on landing configuration at altitude and see just what it takes.  It's good to explore that behaviour for each glider you fly, because they all have variations in behaviour.  Also things like spoiler deployment on pitch.  Some pitch up, some pitch down.  But if you're flying a glider with speed limiting dive brakes where you can come down at crazy steep angles, I can't really see a need to slip.  It's more for jammed spoilers, or old gliders like 233s with not very powerful spoilers.

Firstly, I would find a way to keep that airspeed info coming.  Loss of airspeed info certainly could be very dangerous, especially if you are slipping into your landing approach in any kind of winds.
That being said, if you are cross controlled (ailerons in rudder away), as soon as you feel a buffet center the ailerons and rudder, and PITCH DOWN.  If you haven't started yawing, you are OK.  If you have, use that rudder!
Breaking/preventing the stall by pitching down is critical, as is controlling yaw with the rudder.  Do not worry about your bank, you can carefully roll out after the stall is definitely broken.  Only then can you safely use aileron inputs.
Provided proper inputs (especially centering ailerons) are done at stall warning, spin should not develop if the CG is set up correctly and the glider is of a stable design.
I would worry a lot more about my airspeed indicator.
Remember, the best way to know the consequences of a stall is to try it with a qualified instructor at a safe altitude.  This is the best way to learn the slow flight characteristics of your plane.
If your design is docile enough, simply relaxing the elevator may be enough when you feel the buffet, but practicing up high will help fine tune your technique tremendously.

"Firstly, I would find a way to keep that airspeed info coming." You simply can't. slipping means the pitot receives no air in a glider. It's impressive how the ASI quickly dies to zero as soon as you have a few degrees in.

As a researcher that would immediately get me interested in an alternative.  Though the traditional pitot tube is dear to my heart, a cup anemoter mounted on a swivel with fins to hold it into the wind (not unlike a tiny windmill) might work better.  At low speeds, particularly when deflected, pitot tubes are notoriously unreliable.

I would suggest you take some dual spin training, and then go carefully perform some constant-heading cross-controlled stalls at altitude in all the gliders you will be flying, with the intent of exploring the flight characteristics up to the point of the stall break.  (Don't intentionally take things further than the stall break unless spins are allowed in that glider, and you are competent in spin recovery.)  I would suggest that in a constant-heading slip or a slipping turn with the yaw string blowing toward the outside of the turn (as opposed to a skidding turn with the yaw string blowing toward the inside of the turn), in most gliders you'll find that if you relax the aft stick pressure as soon as the nose begins to drop in the stall, the glider will not spin.  (Please add a note to the end of this answer listing any glider types where you find this not to be true!)
In general, if you are slipping to lose altitude, you'll get the best results if you carry some excess airspeed-- keep that nose down.  But note that a normal crosswind landing, using the wing-down method, does end up with the aircraft slowing to near stall speed in uncoordinated (slipping) flight.  In most gliders this is considered to be an acceptable landing technique.
Here is a related answer: What happens in a stall during a slip?
The last paragraph of this answer also has some related content: Is this paragraph about the dihedral effect in the FAA's Glider Flying Handbook correct?


text:
What is this plane?
What is this plane? It kept circling overhead and I managed to get a picture during one of it's passes. The only parts I could see was 4 piston engines, straight wings, and a tall tail with some obscure markings on it.

As the answer below says, it is unmistakably a C-130 Hercules military transport. It has 4 turboprop engines, not piston engines.

It least I figured out the engines used big propellers...

This wouldn't happen to be near the Peoria Air National Guard would it?

Circling overhead? I'm slightly disappointed it wasn't an AC-130 ;-)

@RedGrittyBrick That would have been spooky...

Indeed it would, @SteveIves, indeed it would... :)

There is a horizontal stripe across the tail. So this airplane is most likely Air National Guard. Inside that stripe will be the state name but the photo is not clear enough to read. Wikipedia for the 169th Airlift Squadron says they fly C-130H3, but the photo is a J model, you can tell by the propeller blades.

@radarbob, the first picture in answer by veryRandomMe appears to have the same stripe, but the wing is clearly marked "USAF", so not (necessarily) National Guard. Or do ANG aircraft carry that designation too?

You're  right about the stripe - looking on c-130.net I see a Little Rock AFB bird with a stripe: "The Rock" and "AMC" (Air Mobility Command) directly above that. It is definitely active duty, not guard. ; but in the reference photo  I see "ANG" above that stripe. And on the wheel well blister I see " ... GUARD" which is(!) ANG-specific.  All I know is, when I went out to the parking lot I always found my airplane.

Air Guard planes also have national symbology - the stars and bars; and USAF. But that was long ago and far away, I saw so much better than I do today.

This looks like a C-130, as features like the bulge for the landing gear make it fairly easy to make the comparison.
For reference, here is a C-130 in flight:

The first image even appears to have the same markings as shown in the footage.
Military practices quite often will require an aircraft to hold a position, and could have just been circling for that reason. These aircraft are primarily used for lifting and aerial refueling. I do not see any refueling pods on the reference though, so it appears to be an unconverted plane.

that looks exactly like it - even the paint on the tail matches!


text:
Can a company be both an airplane manufacturer and an airline?
It may be advantageous for a company that manufactures its own aircraft to also be an airline. For example, the airline business would likely have reduced maintenance and parts costs relative to other airlines, and there would be a tighter feedback loop between manufacturing and end consumers.
I have read that Boeing, who used to own United Aircraft and Transport (UAT), was forced to dissolve UAT after investigation into the scandalous "spoils conferences" (source):

In a move clearly aimed at Boeing, new Postmaster General James Farley and, later, Congress banned the award of the new contracts to any companies that also built aircraft.

I managed to find what I believe is the Air Mail Act of 1934 that supposedly bans these vertically integrated companies here, but I don't see where, specifically, the act bans these companies. It's unclear to me whether this was a one-off ban of combined aircraft manufacturers and air mail companies, or whether this ban continues through today with modern airlines. I am specifically interested in the US here, but would also be curious about other countries (e.g. could Airbus do this?)
Is it still illegal for all manufacturers to start their own airlines, or does this law no longer apply today?

Does Airbus transport International count?

I wouldn't count it because it seems like they are just using it to move their own parts, but interesting find.

If you don't get a good answer here, you might ask on law.SE.

Another historical perspective: Junkers helped to found and participated in dozens of airlines in the early 1920s. This helped to boost demand for his products (mainly the F-13, but all started with two converted military two-seaters).
That was everything but unusual: Many aircraft factories, among them Albatros and Sablatnig in Germany, tried to shift their products after the cessation of hostilities by founding airlines.
Generally, when a city wanted to be connected to the new air travel network, it would supply an airfield and some capital and the aircraft company would be happy to contribute aircraft and personnel. This way, dozens of airlines providing mostly local connections were operating in the early Twenties in Europe and competition would drive down prices and increase demand. Therefore, all those airlines were unprofitable and successfully lobbied for government support, which grew from year to year. But also Junkers was not profitable and had to be supported by government loans.
By 1925, 40% of all civil air traffic worldwide was flown on Junkers airplanes and Junkers Luftverkehr AG completely or partially owned many of the airlines operating its aircraft. The failure of Junkers to repay government loans at the end of 1925 meant that ownership of those shares was transferred to the German government which moved swiftly to consolidate the German airlines into Luft Hansa, thus ending the price war and greatly helping to reduce the subsidies.
By resolving to only subsidize one single airline, the national flag carrier, Governments effectively ended the habit of aircraft manufacturers to operate airlines. Specific legislation was not needed.

I did a little searching (I'm NOT a lawyer) and couldn't come up with anything that would explicitly prohibit a company from operating as both in the USA or the EU -- but I'm definitely not authoritative on that.
The definitions are a little fuzzy: airline can mean a few different things in a strict legal sense: there's a big difference between someone flying a few tourists around compared to British Airways or United carrying millions of people.  If I can get a type certificate / approval and build an airplane, that makes me a manufacturer.  If I then charge people for transportation, I can at least argue that makes me an airline, right?
With that said, like a lot of aviation (particularly airline) questions, I think you'll find that the answer is more tightly coupled to economics than it is law or physics...
Running an "airline" in the conventional sense of the term is an incredibly expensive, high-risk, high-capital, complex operation.  Billions of dollars in investment has been poured into that industry over decades, and a large percentage of it has been lost.  To be competitive in this space requires extremely specific business skills that are hard to find in general, and even harder to retain.
Running an aircraft manufacturing operation is also very complex, highly-regulated (in lots of different ways) and also requires a set of business, technology, and people resources that are ALSO really really hard to find and keep.  There probably aren't more than a dozen "large" aircraft manufacturing operations in the world today, only a handful are in the business of "building airplanes for airlines" in the traditional definitions, and the costs are a huge part of why that's the case. (See also: the exceptional consolidation of both airlines and manufacturers in the last few decades)
For your examples, for Boeing to try and operate as an airline would come with some economies of scale (they'd be buying their own airplanes, right?) but would also come with massive additional costs and complexities -- one of the largest being the business problem that they'd be "competing with their own customer base": this is never a fun place for a for-profit enterprise to land.
I was able to come up with only two scenarios where this might happen:

something like where a "crazed genius billionaire" (Think Richard Branson or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos?) just decides they want to do both and can put up the monstrous capital required to try.
A nation-state decides that it's in their national interest to have both a major manufacturer and a national airline, and is willing to fund such an investment.  There are certainly arguments that many large airlines and most if not all large manufacturers are the recipients of government support already (though the extent of this and the legality is VERY hotly debated) - so this would also sort of straddle the fence between what is a "company" and what is a "government".

I think it depends on the country, but mostly, yes, an airplane manufacturer can operate as an airline at the same time. Take one example, Antonov. Antonov builds planes like the AN-225, and also flies the AN-225 in cargo operations.
I don't know about US regulations about this, but Boeing does operate it's own aircraft in airshows.
And as for all airplane manufacturers, I don't know about that, because every country might have their own rules, even if they are all a part of the ICAO or IATA. So, Im sure that you'll find some authoritarian country out there that won't allow it.

The Dreamlifter is operated by Atlas Air, but Antonov is exactly the example I thought of when I saw this post.

@zymhan: thank's ive edited my post

The Airbus Beluga (Airbus A300-600ST) is a modified version of the standard Airbus A300-600 designed to transport oversized cargo.
The plane was designed by Aérospatiale and DASA, two of the major Airbus partners. The Beluga is operated by Airbus Transport International (ATI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Airbus Group that was established specifically to operate the type of aircraft. The Beluga is a transport method for individual parts of Airbus planes for final assembly in Toulouse, France. In addition, it has been used to transport third party cargo such as satellites to launch facilities, relief supplies and even oversized artwork.
Boeing uses a similar aircraft, the Boeing 747 Dreamlifter. The Dreamlifter was designed by a third party and operated by a third party. The design was handled by Evergreen Aviation due to FAA regulations (I do not have a citation). The air fleet is operated by Atlas Air. I could not find any regulations that stop Boeing from operating it's own fleet of aircraft. It's more of a consideration to how Boeing operates these days.

While the exact definition of "airline" is fuzzy, offering regular scheduled service to the general public seems like a key component.

In the UK there would be no problem. Back in the day, Handley Page ran their own airline to help boost demand for air travel after WWI. But most manufacturers do not like being tied to one operator, and most operators do not like being tied to one airline, so it lasted only as long as the market needed it to.


text:
Can a supersonic plane use a subsonic wing if the nosecone shock produces subsonic airflow around the wing?
A supersonic plane will produce shock waves off the nose cone, as seen below:

These oblique shocks reduce the speed of the air that the wing experiences. If the plane is at a low enough Mach number, the shocks will reduce the speed of the air to below Mach 1. For example, I calculate (with the Taylor-Maccoll equations, I could be wrong) that a Mach 1.5 plane with a nose cone total angle of 25° will produce Mach 0.7 flow following that shock wave.
Assuming the shocks off the body don't significantly alter the Mach number, the wings will experience this lower Mach number if their span isn't too large. The wings are then experiencing a Mach number lower than most commercial jets.
Why, then, do almost all supersonic planes use either a highly swept leading edge (most jet fighters) or a sharp leading edge (like the F-104)?

My guess is that the shock cone appears only when the nose (and the aircraft) is going faster that Mach 1. For example, if the aircraft is flying at Mach 0.9 there will be no shock cone (or not big enough), and your wings will fly through a Mach 0.9 air flow. As consequence, I think that your wings must be effective at least for the whole subsonic and transsonic domains.

If you want to reach M 1.5, you have to go through M 0.1, M 0.2, M 0.3... The aircraft does not magically pop at M 1.5, so the whole flight domain must be considered, and this may be an important factor in the design of the wing of supersonic aircraft.
(Note that this does not hold if the aircraft/drone/missile is released by a supersonic carrier vehicle).

Normally, the flow speed at the wing is about the same as the speed ahead of the bow shock. Only if the fuselage is still conical and expanding at the wing station would the local flow speed be smaller. In order to be subsonic, you would need an absurdly blunt fuselage at Mach 1.5. But the wing is in a way still subsonic if its leading edge sweep is sufficient.
If you look closely enough, every shock has a subsonic region, but it is normally very small. The size of the subsonic region depends on the flow speed and the bluntness of the body causing the shock. See the diagram below for the parts of a classical oblique shock.

Diagram of an oblique shock and its three areas (picture source)
Supersonic aircraft are pointed at the front end in order to minimize the region of the strong shock, resulting effectively in an attached shock. The steeper the shock angle for a given flow speed, the higher the losses are. Only in hypersonic vehicles are blunt noses used on purpose, but nor for braking but for limiting local heat loads.
Why does the subsonic region disappear so soon? Because the cross section of the body stops to grow in flow direction, and the pressure energy past the strong shock is converted into speed again in expansion waves.
This means that the wings still fly in supersonic flow. If the fuselage has a constant cross section along the wing's chord, the flow speed is even the same as the speed ahead of the shock. Otherwise, the tail shock would have a smaller cone angle, which it does not have; the flow accelerates again in expansion waves when the conical nose changes to the regular fuselage, and again when the fuselage contracts at its end.
Now it makes sense to sweep the wing such that it will fit inside the Mach cone resulting from the inboard wing section. This results in a subsonic orthogonal speed component at the leading edge. The important insight here is that the spanwise speed component of the flow is not affected by the wing, and only the orthogonal component counts. If that component is subsonic, the whole wing behaves like a straight wing in subsonic flow. Note that all supersonic aircraft with a subsonic leading edge use blunt-nosed airfoils, because those create a suction force (PDF!) which reduces drag.
At higher speed sweep needs to be so steep that the problems of swept wings cannot be tolerated any more. Then and only then it makes sense to have a supersonic leading edge which has less sweep than the Mach cone and needs to be sharp in order to minimize drag. Another way to combine high sweep and good subsonic characteristics is to use variable sweep. This was the preferred solution until it was realised that high supersonic speed is rarely used in combat.

Thanks for the answer. That makes sense. So the speed of the air in the flight direction will be the same as that in the freestream if the fuselage has a relatively constant cross section, because the expansion waves will exactly subtract the velocity change from the cone. A swept wing must be tucked back such that the normal component is below the critical Mach number of the airfoil. What about the density, etc. of the air along the fuselage and at the wing? I'd imagine it must be higher since the fuselage must push air out of the way.

@Gus, no, pushing the air out of the way does not have to mean compressing it. At subsonic speeds it instead accelerates and expands. At supersonic speeds the shock waves compress the flow and expansion waves, well, expand it. In both cases, density decreases with increasing speed.

@Gus: You find a strong density variation between the upper and the lower surface of the wing, but in lengthwise direction density varies little.

Though the oblique shocks reduce the downstream mach number, the flow will still be supersonic usually; for the flow to be subsonic, the shock has to be either normal or detached (bow shock).
For every body angle (i.e. corner angle)-mach number combination, there is a maximum corner angle $\theta_{max}$, beyond which the shock will be detached from the body.

Oblique shock angle, β, as a function of the corner angle, θ; By -- Myth (Talk) 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) - Own work (Original text: self-made), Public Domain, Link
For cases where the corner angle is less than the maximum, there are two solutions possible- strong and weak. The weak solution leads to downstream supersonic flow (and smaller shock wave angle β), while the strong one leads to subsonic flow downstream (and larger shock wave angle β).
Which solution is 'preferred' depends on the ratio of upstream and downstream pressure; in case of external flows which concern us, downstream pressure is usually close to upstream pressure (both near $P_{atm}$) and as a result, the weak solution (and downstream supersonic flow) is 'selected'.
From NACA Report 1135: Equations, tables and Charts for Compressible Flow:

... two solutions exist for each cone and Mach number, but it is believed that only the weaker shock wave can occur on an isolated convex body.

So, the wings have to be designed for supersonic regime in case the nose produces oblique shock waves (detached shock waves are no good- they increase drag tremendously and that is the main reason they are used in re-entry vehicles). Even if the flow is not supersonic, you're still in transonic regime, where you need design the wings keeping the critical Mach number in mind.

Though the 3D flow over a cone is similar to the flow over the wedge (in that it has strong-weak cases and separation above a certain limit), the maximum angle $\theta_{max}$ is higher in case of 3D flow. Again, the attached shock is the 'weak' one.
Because of the 3D relieving effect (which causes a weaker shock), the pressure on the cone surface is less than the wedge surface pressure and the cone surface Mach number is greater than that of the wedge surface. As a result, the designer has to contend with supersonic flow still.

Thanks for the answer. A shock off a 3D cone is different than a shock off a 2D wedge, though. Moving from 2D to 3D changes the shock's strength, which is why you're seeing 12.5° as exceeding the limit for the 2D case. I don't think a shock that causes supersonic flow to go to subsonic flow necessarily requires the shock to be detached, though I could be wrong and that may be the issue.

I think what you're saying is that if the solution we see for the 3D cone is a strong shock (ie the downstream flow is subsonic), then the nose is poorly designed to begin with. We should never see strong shocks off the nose, otherwise the drag is very high. I don't think the strong shock necessarily creates a detached bow shock, so I'm still having trouble thinking about why the drag will be so much higher in the case of the strong shock off the nose cone.

@Gus I added a note in response to your comment. You're correct that the shock will still be attached in the 3D case; however, it will be comparatively weaker compared to the 2D case and as a result of the 'weak' solution, the downstream Mach number is still likely more than 1.


text:
Could the Concorde reliably land with all engines out?
The Concorde was designed to fly at supersonic speeds; because of this its delta wings produce more drag at subsonic speeds. My understanding is that delta wings can produce a large amount of lift at high angles of attack. But is this enough to overcome the other obvious difficulties of an all engine out case caused by, for example, fuel leak?

I think what you're really asking is "Is it possible for a delta-wing aircraft to make a safe engine-out landing?" -- if so, the answer is yes - it's just a very poor glider that needs to maintain a rather high airspeed...

With a glide ratio of 4 to 12 depending on the flight regime, the outcome really come down to "Is there a suitable runaway close enough to land on"

Consider the Space Shuttle, whose only mode of landing was w/o engines. If such a brick could reliably land, the Concorde ought to have been able, too.

@yankeekilo The Space Shuttle had some very serious constraints during landing, though, not all of them related to the fact that it was, well, a spacecraft rather than an airplane. For example, I'm pretty sure they made very certain that there was no other competing traffic anywhere near its intended flight (glide) path toward the runway, and they initiated the landing literally half a world away.

If your Concorde has 4 engine failure, I promise you that ATC will move the traffic out of your way

@MichaelKjörling heh,  right! Glide ratio can go figure if you start from LEO. I was only thinking about flight mechanics. Not that the shuttle had a stellar overall landing history...

In theory yes.  The loss of the engines will mean you also lose the generators and hydraulic pumps, but Concorde was equipped with a RAT which drove it's secondary and emergency hydraulic systems, so control would be possible.
Having never flown Concorde, but familiar with the flight characteristics of supersonic, high performance aircraft, I would guess such a forced landing would be flown at a steep angle of descent and at higher speeds say around 220-230 kts with leveling out in a shallow descent and roundout at or very near the threshold, placing the aircraft down at Vref in 1000-1500 feet thereafter.


text:
How do jet engines generate electrical power?
I am interested in understanding how electric power is generated in Jet engines. If a pilot continuously keeps altering the throttle to suit the flight requirements, how does the jet engine maintain constant torque to the generators, given the load on the generators is relatively stable? I thought of three potential solutions

Install a set of gears along the main shaft to handle the torque differential.
Feed output of few combustion chambers to a separate small turbine connected to a generator. This arrangement would allow controller to independently control fuel to these combustion chambers ensuring there output is optimal for feeding to generators.
Use bleed air from engines and drive some wind turbine. I feel this option very unlikely.

Please share some schematics as well. My intention is to just learn and I am an amateur, so feel to correct my assumptions

Given, pilot continuously keeps altering the throttle to suit the flight requirements, how does jet engine maintain constant torque to the generators given the load on the generators is relatively stable. I don't see why you feel this is a problem. Cars have the same "problem" (and throttle use is way more variable than in a plane) and it is solved by a simple voltage regulator

Are you asking about the engine specifically? Or a jet aircraft as a whole? Because you ask about the engine but then talk about pilot inputs. On some aircraft they have a little dedicated turbine (or even a piston engine) just for the power generation, not propulsion: the auxilloary power unit (APU).

But the APU is turned off once the main engines are running typically. Simply to save fuel.

All jets and turbofans run a gearbox driven off the outer spool shaft.  The gearbox has drive pads for all of the powered accessories like hydraulic pumps, fuel pumps, and the generator, and an input drive pad for the starter.  The engine runs at whatever speed it wants to run at as set by the pilot, and the demands from the services driven off the gearbox just add to the load it has to deal with.  In the end, if the electrical load goes up, it just means the fuel controller has to dump more fuel in the burner to maintain the speed it's being told to maintain.
The generators on most modern jets are normally alternating current 3 phase 110 volt, at a constant frequency of 400 Hz. They will use a variable input gear drive that holds the generator at an RPM that gives a steady 400 Hz frequency output, regardless of the engine input speed, which is required by all the electronics.  These are called Integrated Drive Generators.
You may also see variable frequency AC generators that just run at whatever speed the engine runs at with AC frequency changing with speed. You can't use variable frequency AC for avionics, so those types of generators may only power things like heaters and other frequency insensitive services, and the fixed frequency AC will be provided by static inverters that run off DC power, provided by a separate DC generator.

Thanks John. Also are there any engines with dedicated combustion Chambers feeding to a dedicated gas turbine and generator. I am just trying to understand the reason for going with gearbox.

The idea of "dedicated combustion chamber" is more or less what an APU is; their fuel control can adjust the fuel to  keep the RPM steady, thus avoiding the need for constant-speed drive and gearings. As for separate combustion chambers within an engine, no, that isn't used AFAIK.

The gearbox is because you need to power a number of services.  It's not a gear reduction per se like a car, just a gear train that distributes the input power to a sequence of output gears at the mounting pads for the different components. Just google "jet engine accessory gearbox".

Is one of the approaches you mentioned (using a gearbox to produce a preset frequency vs. just generating at the engine's frequency and then generating fixed frequency using electronics) newer than the other? I imagine the latter costs more, but saves some weight, so might be preferred in newer designs? Or does it just depend on the engine (or aircraft) manufacturer?

@rob74 once the power electronics for ACFW had matured commercially, it wasn't only lighter than a gearbox, but much cheaper too - replace all that high grade rotating stuff with stuff that doesn't move.

Why 400 Hz is answered here https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/36381/why-do-aircraft-use-400-hz-ac-instead-of-the-50-or-60-hz-of-wall-outlets

Variable Frequency AC generation was introduced on the A380 and is used on the B787, A350, and B777X. Eliminating the constant speed drive saves weight and cost. As for avionics, most are 28VDC, though some higher powered devices still use AC. These have been converted to accommodate variable frequency with power factor correction. The B787 also rectifies the source 230VAC to 270VDC to run high power devices such as the hydraulic pumps. Ref; The Electric System Design of the B787

There are in fact at least three (I say that because I know of 3, and there could be more) different methods used. So to say “all aircraft” is not quite right. Lets start with what I think is the single most important equation, Faraday’s Law (simplified):
$$ \mathcal{E}=-N\frac{\mathrm{d}{BAcos{\omega t}}}{\mathrm{d}t}\ $$
This tells us there are a number of ways to produce a given output EMF ($ \mathcal{E} $). The two that are relevant for this discussion are B and $ \omega $. Note $ \omega $ is the angular frequency, which can be scaled to RPM.
GA aircraft, including biz jets, will likely be using a DC generator or a DC alternator. In a DC system, given these are small light aircraft, we actually control B in Faraday’s Law. That is, if the RPM increases, then we reduce the magnetic field strength inside the generator. This results in a balanced output. The generator control unit (GCU) is responsible for doing this. Effectively, it is continuously measuring the output of the generator (or DC alternator) and as the output voltage falls, the current provided to the field windings (the coils or wire that produce the magnetic field, which is an electromagnet) is increased. Similarly, if the output goes high, the current to the field windings is decreased. The circuit is shown below [1].

For large transport category aircraft, there are two options. These are the legacy systems (as answered by others) and the modern more electric aircraft solution, used in the B787 and the A350 (and I am sure on modern variants of older airframes). As previously mentioned, for legacy large transport category aircraft, the part of Faraday’s law that is controlled is the RPM. This cannot be done inside the AC alternator, so it needs to be done before it. As mentioned, the constant speed drive unit (CDU) is combined with the AC alternator to give an integrated drive generator (IDG). The CDU is a hydrostatic transmission system. In this, the input rotation pumps a hydraulic fluid, which depending on the input RPM will increase and decrease in pressure. The GCU now actuates a wobble plate in the transmission systems which ensures the output hydraulic fluid pressure is constant. This constant pressure fluid is then given to the output “turbine” or hydraulic drive, which rotates the output at a constant rate. This gives a constant RPM for the alternator. A figure is show below, although not super helpful [1].

For modern large transport aircraft, none of the above happens. These are called ACFW systems, that is AC (alternative current) frequency wild systems. Here, we let the starter generator (which still does have a GCU, so there is an operating band that needs to be maintained) rotation change with the RPM change of the engine. This generates wildly different AC frequencies at different times (engine RPMs). This is then immediately converted into DC. For this to be utilised in systems that require AC current, the typically 3 phase 115V/120V 400Hz signal, then static inverters are used to convert the DC signal into the require AC signal. In these, we effectively switch on and off a DC signal, give it to a transformer (and other conditioning circuitry) to make the required AC signal. The same kind of power system is utilised in the F-22 and F-35, for example.
References:
[1] FAA. (2018). Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook - Airframe Volume 1. Federal Aviation Administration. PDF (194 MB)

"3 phase 115V/120V 400Hz": Do you mean "115V/200V"? Variable frequency current from ACFW is also used as-is (e.g. for heaters: ovens, deicing), but ACFW aircraft are not common (A380, B787). More, including this picture.

It wasn't exactly a wind turbine, but the older model C-130's had an "Air Turbine Motor" which did exactly what the OP's 3rd point suggests, extracting the energy from bleed air to power a generator.
I'm familiar with the E model, which was produced from 1962-1972, and the 1973 H-model (also called the Super-E, and distinct from the 1974 -H1 model). The H1 (1974), H2 (1980's), H3 (1990s) and J model (current) don't use an ATM, and have an APU that can be started and run in flight. The E model birds had a "Gas Turbine Compressor" or GTC, which was like an APU but which couldn't be run in flight. It didn't have a generator, but produced bleed air for the ATM to use. The ATM could also use bleed air from the engines, so it was a viable backup generator in flight, even though the GTC wasn't available then.
This arrangement isn't common, but Lockheed evidently liked it well enough to use it for a decade or more; I can't speak to what the Herks older than the E model used in this regard, though I wouldn't be surprised if the A and B model birds also had GTC's and ATM's too.
John's answer describes how the engine-driven generators on the Herk (and nearly everything else) worked, which is by far the most common solution. But yes, bleed air certainly can be used to power a generator.

Bleed air can also run hydraulic pumps, as the following answer describes: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/89601/7532

Many aircraft engines has an axillary gear drive shaft to a hydraulic constant speed drive or CSD. The CSD input can be a fairly wide range of RPM. the output is constant. It turns a generator at a constant speed resulting in a constant frequency of electrical output. The AC on most aircraft is 400 HZ.
It is common to have more that one generator on multiengine aircraft. The generators outputs are bussed together. a frequency / load controller will make small adjustment to the CSD to balance the load across the generators.
Older aircraft often have pneumatically driven generators that used bleed air from the engines.


text:
Do airplanes really expose their internal wires and electronics like this on the wings when braking?
While watching a video today about airplanes and how they have little thingies on their wings to make them come to a stop much quicker than otherwise, I noticed something very odd:
Are those cables and electronics? Just exposed right into the air like that? Isn't that bad? Sure, it's on the back side, thus not immediately facing the wind, but still, what if it's snowing or raining? It looks downright scary to me. Or am I seeing things? It's not the sharpest screenshot or video.

Yes, that screenshot is an accurate representation of exactly what you would see from that angle. Assume that every component on the aircraft, particularly those to do with flight control surfaces, has been engineered to the n-th degree over many decades of experience.

Have you looked on the underside of a car? You will find hydraulic plumbing for the brakes as well as electrical cables. Below a car is a much worse environment for these than on a plane. And if we maintained our cars as well as the planes, the cars would last at least 80 years.

Define "internal".  Regardless, you do have a photo of an airplane wing.  Here's a link to some other photos:  https://www.google.com/search?q=airplane+wing+spoilers+deployed&sxsrf=AOaemvLU5__O0Ayjte2P9sTYFixqqLescA:1640792306487&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=VrwdRRGgf3skIM%252CF9mB_eLa6emcFM%252C_%253B4RhGKzL1yaRdYM%252CxJeIHkAqyMPFYM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSn8MFkLDE28wDPwNKqjrxFAJ3z2w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip4M_Uq4n1AhWPj4kEHS5YDFoQ_h16BAgFEAE&biw=1160&bih=1091#imgrc=EwD3A-d9OyM5XM

@ghellquist also, construction and farming vehicles covered in all kinds of hydraulic lines....

Also: Rain and snow is very pure water ... water splashing up from a road surface, mixed with grit, dirt and salts, is very likely 1000x worse ...

As someone who has flown on airplanes many times, yes, they do do that.

I think this is an excellent question.  We are not used to the inner parts of our safety critical machinery being open to the elements like that, so it is surprising at first.

Not electrical, but hydraulic plumbing. Very strong, robust, corrosion-resistant plumbing.

Well, you’ve got a picture of it happening, so “do they really” seems moot. Maybe this should be changed to “why do they …”

You will have both hydraulic system plumbing lines, the metal pipes, and wiring harnesses running along the rear spar, serving hydraulic actuators and electrical components like sensors and servos, etc.
The hydraulic plumbing is already hermetically sealed, being hydraulic plumbing holding 3000 psi (21 MPa), so being exposed is no big deal.  The wiring harnesses running along the spar will be encased in waterproof sheathing, and the electrical connectors (cannon plug type generally) will be ones designed for exterior use with hermetically sealed back shells integrated into the harness sheathing.
It's a very demanding environment because the electrical components have to maintain their integrity while subjected to temperature cycles from surface ambient down to -60°C at altitude, plus pressure cycles.  Any air leaks that allow the sheath or connector to breathe will pull water in as air is drawn in during descents as the pressure in cavities equalizes.  Components in locations like that have to be designed to fully breathe, and withstand direct exposure to moisture, or else be hermetically sealed.
Water getting into the harness wire looms will wick up inside and corrode the internal shielding.  Water getting into the electrical connectors will cause crosstalk between electrical circuits as moisture provides leak paths between pins, and you will get related system faults when voltages appear at pins that shouldn't.  The weak points for water ingress are usually the boots that cover the back shells of electrical connectors, or the connector interface where it plugs into something.
The other items you will normally see are control cable runs for non-FBW airplanes, and obviously, flap system drive lines, which all have to be designed to withstand the exposed environment (actually more or less enclosed when at altitude, the exposure is only when flaps are down or spoilers are up, but they are still exposed to the pressure/temperature cycles).
You would think that you would use stainless steel control cables for these runs, but, at least in RJ world, only galvanized steel cables are used because stainless has less strength and doesn't like to rub against itself (the cable strands break down over time where the cable goes around corners).  So one thing you have to inspect for during heavy checks is cable corrosion (rust) and pully bearings breaking down and seizing (especially horizontally mounted pulleys, as the grease slowly leaks out of the bearing).
The wing box forward of the spar is full of fuel, and to run that stuff through the tanks will require conduit pipes and result in poor access, so along the rear spar in the open is the easiest place to route all that stuff for ease of maintenance. But overall, keeping the moisture out of the electrical harnesses and connectors is probably the biggest struggle.

Thanks.  Problems with wiring harness water ingress in wing TEs in service was the bane of my existence on the CRJ program.

-60°C or -60°F?

@gerrit "-60°C or -60°F"? at that point, not a whole lot of difference, considering that -40C and -40F are the same thing.

The actual certification qualification temperature range on most airplanes is -40C, sometimes a bit lower.  But the parts will be exposed to -60C at high altitudes in the winter.

I think it would be worth adding to your answer that aircraft are regularly inspected (including for damage to those components) as part of their required maintenance. In the USA, at least, that inspection and maintenance is Federally mandated, I believe.

Worth mentioning: temperature change over ascent/descent will be even higher than the mentioned 60°C. Planes can take off from areas with temperatures above 40°C, and quite quickly end up cruising in temperatures well below -50°C

Things like harnesses are just inspected under the "zonal" inspection program during heavy checks (inspections are broken up into areas or zones for organizational and administrative purposes, just checking that things look ok).  If you have water ingress problems from microscopic breaches in a waterproof jacket, it won't show up until faults occur and the harness gets inspected and tested in detail during troubleshooting.

I would add that the aileron, flap and spoiler actuators have to be there as they are what opens that gap, so they inevitably already have all the problems. By running the pipes and wires to those actuators there the problem is just extended to longer stretch of them, unlike routing through the wet wing that would create a bunch of completely new problems.

To complement things mentioned in other answers and comments, in particular the mention of the underside of a car, here is what the undercarriage well looks in a Boeing 737:

Neither these pipes and cables nor the ones in the OP, are continuously exposed to the elements, though they do during a landing. They are designed to do so, the same way that the underside of a car is designed to survive the water and little rocks that continuously hit it.
This question and its answers also provide more data.

Are those cables and electronics?

Cables, yes. Electronics, no, other than a few sensors.

Just exposed right into the air like that?

Yes! Air is neither corrosive nor an electrical conductor under most conditions.

Isn't that bad?

Not at all. Some of the smartest minds in engineering designed these systems with one primary goal: safety.

Sure, it's on the back side, thus not immediately facing the wind, but still, what if it's snowing or raining?

Snow and rain do not affect the operation of these cables, wires, and hoses. And these cables, wires, and hoses are made of materials that are not damaged by the air nor the common contaminants in the air.

It looks downright scary to me. Or am I seeing things?

You are correct, to someone not familiar with the components or engineering techniques, it looks scary. Wait until you see how many switches are in the cockpit! I hope that this view into the scary world of aviation is your doorway into the fascinating world of aviation. Keep looking at those planes, and keep asking questions!

With the flaps set to a fully deployed landing position, and the spoilers raised, you can get a pretty good view of the flap well. The side with all the “cables and electronics” is in fact the outside of the rear wing spar.  This forms one of those key components of a wing box. Fwd of that is the interior of the wing box which acts as a sealed fuel tank in the wing.  Typically on the outside of that spar, you will run hydraulic lines for one of the hydraulic systems a board the aircraft which provides actuation of the primary flight controls, wing spoilers, and actuates the flap drives. You may also see wiring run along through this section as well, which provides power as well as electronic flight control inputs to the control surfaces, in the case of a fly-by-wire aircraft. It might seem a little strange but that’s a perfectly normal way to design the wings on a transport category airplane. All that stuff is waterproofed and sealed against the environment.

Remember those lines are not exposed to the airstream; they are placed in an area that sees little moisture and pressure when the plane is moving. In flight, the flaps will have moved forward, closer to them, and the airbrakes would be lowered shut, so there are not many places for air to flow inside that pocket. One bad (it would require to be flying with the airbrakes open) analogy would be driving a convertible car with the top down in the rain: as long as it does not slow down, the people on the front seats will be dry.
Once the plane lands and is parked outside in the flightline, rain, moisture, and snow can make their way there in the same way they would in the engine bay of a car.
Incidentally, they place those hoses and lines there because they are protected from weather and airflow and are easy to reach and inspect. Understand that people do a walk over a plane before flight, so the easier you can make for them to check it the better.


text:
Airspeed and RPM relationship with different attitudes
How can I figure out what airspeed goes with what rpm? I cannot find it in the POH.
I read that for cruising attitude on a Cessna 152, we should aim for 2200 rpm. My plane is a PA-28-151.
I am asking this because when I go on a flight with my instructor, numbers such as 1500, 2000, and 2400 rpm are used often when either climbing or descending.
Any tips from experience or references is much appreciated.

I would highly recommend an hour or two spent fiddling around.  Even better if you can have a safety pilot, and even better if you have something like a Go Pro type of camera watching the panel.  Get the plane trimmed up straight and level, and leave everything the same and reduce RPM by 100.  Then another 100…  Then another…  and record how many FPM your descent increases.  Same thing with speed:  Set 2200 RPM and note the speed.  Then reduce RPM 100 at a time and stay in level flight, recording the speeds.   You’ll start to develop a “sense” of how power, speed and VS are linked.

It's a fact I assume you know, but for the sake of completeness of this answer it's worth nothing that the relationship between RPM and airspeed is not unique - it will depend, among other things on aircraft configuration (e.g. flaps), power setting, the use of carburetor heat, and more. The obvious example being slow flight in a "dirty" configuration may require the same RPM to maintain level flight as might be common when in cruise.
With that out of the way, to better develop a set of RPM targets which you can use for common phases of flight such as climb, cruise, and descent, you were right to look at the POH. If the POH for your PA-28-151 is anything like the one for the PA-28-161 I have with me, RPM setting are not prescribed for everything, but here are some points I'd start with - just note to find the correct values for your aircraft.

The static RPM at full throttle, e.g. between 2330 - 2430 RPM. This is not a number you should see anywhere except verifying before releasing the brakes during a short short field takeoff, but provides a helpful bound.
I don't see stated anywhere in the normal procedures that takeoff/climb power is anything other than full, so full power should be used until cruise. Given the airspeeds for various types of takeoffs/climbs are prescribed, you'll be able to use full power, fly the prescribed airspeeds, note what RPM you see during these phases (along with other conditions). This exercise would probably be of minimal value, except to note if you observe changes in the RPM from what you determine to be expected values.
I expect in your POH you should have a chart like the below that will allow you from temperature, pressure altitude, and power output what the corresponding RPM will be.

So during cruise, you can decide what power setting is appropriate. Your instructor certainly may suggest full power during your training simply in the interest of time, you can decide for longer flights if you can accept a longer flight time at a lower power setting to save on fuel. But nevertheless, there is quite a range of acceptable cruise power settings.
I also notice the following note in the PA-28-161 POH which if you can find the manual for your engine, may provide some additional information.

Refer to the appropriate Avco Lycoming Operator's Manual when selecting the cruise power setting

The normal descent procedure says 2500 rpm, 126 KIAS. While that is a helpful configuration to reference, it's certainly not the only acceptable power setting for a descent. Additionally, it'll be helpful to have power settings for instrument approaches, when in the traffic pattern, and when pulling the power abeam the numbers, as a few examples. For these, there aren't any "correct" power settings, but rather a range that may be reasonable.

So I do suggest taking the values from the POH where they exist, and then finding some reference values online from reputable schools and/or spend a few moments during your next flight with your instructor to determine and dial in values that work well for these common phases of flight. Note these down and follow them so you can approach each phase of flight consistently and avoid confusion if your instructor is giving you slightly different power settings each time and you don't understand why.  For example (note: these are not necessarily correct values for your aircraft) something like the following:

Takeoff/climb: full power

regardless of Vx, Vy, or enroute climb, etc.

Cruise: 2400 - 2500 RPM

See cruise chart for corresponding airspeed

Descent: 2100 RPM

Descending at cruise airspeed, or use the POH descent values above

Instrument approach: 1800 RPM

~90 KIAS

Traffic pattern: 2100 RPM

~100 KIAS

Abeam numbers: 1500 RPM

Pitch for 85 KIAS

Slow flight: 1800 RPM

65 KIAS

So, while this answer doesn't strictly provide the values you are looking for, hopefully it provides some direction for climb and cruise, and points you in the right direction for some of the other phases of flight.

Great answer, thank you for your inputs.


text:
Are there dual pilot planes to pilot myself?
I understand planes have 2 piloting systems often?
Is there a plane I can demo fly first flight?
I'm interested in saying I have flown and that's it.

Go to any flight school and ask to take a "discovery flight". You will handle the controls most of the time. BTW, they are called "yokes" or "controls", not "steering wheels". Only one plane had a steering wheel (that I know of, not including the flying cars or esoteric experimentals).

@RonBeyer  - Doolittle’s Trimotor has steering wheels. The entire cockpit looks like a Ford from that era. It even has roll-down windows (millennials may need to Google that). I wish I could attach a picture. The rear seat legroom is incredible. More than my Beemer. Certainly more than any other 4 seater I have ever flown.

Yes, the vast majority of airplanes have dual controls. You can just call up your local flight school and explain what you want. A "Discovery Flight" is typically 30 minutes of flying, just to see if you're interested, but if you want to go for longer than that, just let them know beforehand.

And most introductory flights will let you take control.


text:
Can I pilot a plane while having a chronic mental health condition?
I want to claim to have flown, it is a dream of mine.
My medical condition disqualifies me from being a pilot. I have one of the following ADHD/OCD/depression/mania/bipolar. Is there a way I can fly as a copilot without a pilot's license?
I want something preferably cheap and not a simulator.

Have you considered ultralights?

@GdD do you have experience with such.  Although they don't require a license I almost feel there is bigger risk on ultralights because there is nobody there to try and take over.  We they even let me fly one to begin with?  I am living in NC and have found the following http://piedmontaerosports.com/

I am not an ultralight pilot, but if I was in a position where I couldn't get a medical I would consider them. They are the cheapest powered option available by far. They are inherently less safe I think, but no flying is risk free. The EAA has a page you may want to read: http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ultralight-flying/ultralight-training-resources/fixed-wing-ultralight-training

Are you asking specifically about flying with a licensed pilot, or about flying an airplane solo?

@GdD solo preferred for obvious reasons.  Should I ask 2 questions?  This question has become more about flying with a licensed pilot then the other.

I think you should edit it to ask "what kind of flying can I do if I can't pass a medical". It's not 2 questions really.

In the US ultralights do require a sport pilot license. The sport license just doesn't require a medical

Yes, as long as the "medical condition" is not blindness.

I hope the FBI has flags for crap like this.  Who wants this guy flying by their house?

@blankip haha in all seriousness I am quit safe.  Even if the FBI flags it would be quite easy to fake a medical from what I have gathered.  To be fair I do think it would be best to delete the ultralight portions of the question for safety of others.

@blankip from my point of view mental health is an unfair field where perfectly intelligent and strong candidates are completely eliminated from military, piloting, being doctors.  So many professions are gone I think it is good that we can at least pilot ultralights.

@TylerDurden Second to last question here: http://www.usua.org/faq.htm#Q9  You don't actually need a license for part 103 ultralights.

You have a couple of options here:
As Skip Miller said, you can take flight lessons. Up until you want to solo, you don't need a medical certificate. Often flight schools have "Discovery Flights" for a reduced cost that still allows you to fly left seat and get half an hour to an hour of flight. Careful though, its addicting.
Actual costs for this range from \$75 to over \$300 depending on the type of aircraft you are going to fly. Hourly rates for a Cessna 152 average around \$90 an hour, to a 172 up to \$150 an hour, and more sleek aircraft like a Cirrus SR-22 at \$300 per hour or more. Instructor rates go from \$35 per hour to \$65 per hour (typically) depending on the type of instruction.
Another option is to find a pilot who wants to build hours and go flying. They may let you fly the airplane around a little bit, but you'll most likely be flying right seat and probably won't let you do the more complicated phases of flight like take-off/landing and operations in controlled airspace. If you find a pilot willing to do this then you can share costs (split down the middle).
By the way don't get discouraged about your medical condition if you really want to fly. There are also a few options there too. First, you could go through the rather lengthy process with the FAA to have your case reviewed and if possible issued a special issuance medical certificate. Some of what you list are automatically disqualifying depending on the medications you may take, but the AOPA has a good read on mental health and getting medicals issued.
Second, you could get a sport pilot license, which also does not require a medical (just a drivers license). There may be hiccups with your conditions here too, so its best to talk to an AME or flight instructor before getting too deep.

Let me answer your specific question:

Is there a way I can fly with a copilot without a pilot's license?

I take this to mean that the "copilot" is a non-pilot rated passenger. Unless you are a certificated pilot, then no. A "co-pilot" must be just that, a pilot. Otherwise they are just a passenger sitting in the front seat. Since that person is a passenger, you must be a fully licensed pilot to fly with them (students cannot take passengers).
If the copilot is a pilot rated individual, then yes, you can go flying with them (provided it is not a Part 135 flight). That person must be rated for the aircraft that you are flying and must meet currency requirements to carry passengers (you). You as a passenger are allowed to manipulate the controls under the supervision of the pilot provided the pilot is pilot in command and unless the pilot is a CFI, they are not providing instruction.

I do find this interesting.  Why is it okay for me to drive a car but not fly by default?  My only assumption is it has to do with 9/11 although I am just guessing.

No, not really. The effects of your medications become larger issues in the air. In a car, you can pull over, in an airplane, you can't. Also altitude can exacerbate side-effects due to reduced oxygen in the blood. Mix that in with the high likelyhood of death if incapacitated, you need to go through more rigorous hurdles to fly over driving. Crashes like Germanwings 9525 also highlighted the dangers of individuals with severe depression in the cockpit...

That is fair although on the highway/interstate you can't really pull over either.  The oxygen and incapacitated points are good points though.

You can stop a moving vehicle if need be, even in a lane of travel (be it more dangerous) or continue a couple minutes to the next exit. An airplane is different, even with an airport directly below you it may take you 30+ minutes to get the aircraft down on the ground, in a critical phase of flight where you need the most skills/abilities.

@William, around here, all freeways come with a shoulder that is intended specifically to allow emergency stopping (with occasional exception of slow lane in uphill segments and sometimes opened for driving in a jam, but then the speed is not so high). Do the US ones not?

@JanHudec Almost all US ones do, but there are some freeways that have been expanded into the shoulder that don't have (much) room for stopping. Usually though there is an exit or pull-out every so often.

@JanHudec multi lane highways can not really have such in the US because if you are driving in the center there is no easy way to get to the shoulder at a moments notice https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Ruta_Panamericana_Buenos_Aires_Florida.jpg  He is also many US freeways don't have much space at if any

@William, in that screenshot past the junction there does seem to be a hard shoulder. Not very wide, but an average car should fit. And while it takes a couple of seconds to pull through all the lanes, it is still much faster than getting on the ground with an aircraft in the middle of cross-country flight.

I take this to mean that the "copilot" is a non-pilot rated passenger I read it the other way: that the co-pilot is rated, but not the OP. has the OP commented on this?

@Federico Either way I covered both cases :)

you did indeed, and I upvoted you for this!

You might add the glider option. They don't require a medical in the US either.

If you are serious about flying then you can see about getting approval from the FAA. If you are no longer taking drugs then you have as good a chance as any to get your student permit. But that is assuming all other things are normal as well. Contact the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) or go to their web site. There is a huge source of information there and the names of people who you can ask that really know the answers.

@Federico  updated the question to say "as the copilot."  Part of me wonders if there are even two passenger planes that allow both copilot and pilot to control the plane.

Take lessons with a CFI (Certified Flight Instructor).

Do you have costs or is that against the rules.

@William Costs vary so wildly based on location, type of aircraft, exact program details, etc... It would be out of scope to really cover it here. Shopping around locally will give you a better idea.

If you are going to look into taking lessons then look into joining a flying club. You may reduce your costs considerably. My club costs $25/mo. I have access to several planes. I fly the Piper Arrow for $136/hr with fuel. I get a credit card with the plane so I can fill it up wherever I go. The 172 (great training plane) costs $80/hr. Most of the instructors approved by the club charge $40/hour. Even Instrument instructors. You wont find those prices at the general Flying School. A school near me charges $160/hour for a 172 whether you have the instructor, or not.


text:
What was the penultimate flight of the TCA plane that crashed near Vancouver in 1947?
In his 1975 book An Almanac of Words at Play, Willard R. Espy recounts the following:

En route from Montreal to Vancouver in 1947, we sat down in Calgary, where a wire from my boss changed my itinerary and I deplaned—the only passenger to do so. The plane proceeded, and vanished in the sloughs around Vancouver. As far as I know, the wreckage was never found.

I was curious as to what flight this might have been.  The only close match I can find is Trans-Canada Air Lines Lockheed 18-08A Lodestar, Fin 53 CF-TDF, that went missing while on approach to Vancouver on 28 April 1947.  (Its wreckage was eventually found in 1994.)  However, this flight departed from Lethbridge, whereas Espy writes that his plane departed from Calgary.
I can see two likely explanations for this:

Espy was wrong about what happened to his plane after he disembarked in Calgary.  It must have continued on to Vancouver without incident, and when he later heard the news about a missing plane en route to Vancouver, he mistakenly believed it was the same one he had been on.

Espy misremembered which airport he stopped at; his plane was actually scheduled to go from Montreal to Vancouver via Lethbridge.  So he really was in Lethbridge, not Calgary, and indeed narrowly avoided being killed in the plane crash.

Supporting evidence for the second explanation might be gleaned from 53 CF-TDF's itinerary before it departed from Lethbridge.  Is there any way of finding out if this plane arrived at Lethbridge from Montreal before continuing on towards Vancouver?